update-todo-checklist-item

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds nothing behavioral: it never says this is a partial update (unmentioned fields left untouched), never mentions the confirm gate that the schema's 'confirm' parameter enforces, and doesn't say what happens to checkedDateTime when isChecked flips. For a mutation with destructiveHint=true, that is a real gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The first sentence is boilerplate that essentially restates the tool name, but the TIP that follows is dense and front-loaded with the actionable payloads. Two short blocks, no filler beyond that one redundant opening line.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 7-parameter nested-body update tool with no output schema, the description supplies the operational essentials: which fields matter, how to shape the body, and where the ID comes from. Return-value behavior is covered by the excludeResponse/includeHeaders parameters, so nothing critical is missing from the description itself.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 86%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by showing how to construct the nested body (isChecked toggling, displayName for rename) and by naming the upstream call that supplies checklistItemId. It does not address confirm, includeHeaders or excludeResponse, which remain schema-only.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (update) and resource (checklistItem) and immediately narrows scope: a step of a To Do task, not the task itself. The concrete operations named (check off, uncheck, rename) make it unmistakable against siblings like create-todo-checklist-item or delete-todo-checklist-item.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The TIP gives explicit use cases with payload shapes ({ isChecked: true } / false / displayName) and states the prerequisite that checklistItemId comes from list-todo-checklist-items. It lacks an explicit 'do not use this to ...' exclusion (e.g., renaming the task itself belongs to update-todo-task), so it falls short of a full 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.